UNESCO - Time To Leave

UNESCO - Time To Leave

I n December 1983, the United States served notice on the United
Nations Educational, scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
that it intended to leave that organization at the end of 1984. The
time to implement that decision has now come.

The reasons given for the decision, when it was announced, were
that UNESCO is excessively politicized, that it consistently favors
"statist" solutions to problems (i.e., s olutions involving putting
greater power in the hands of governments), and that it is very
badly managed. Hardly any knowledgeable observer contests the
validity of these charges. The details of mismanagement have been
spelled out at length, and with comp elling evidence, in the
recently released General Accounting Office! review of UNESCO.

Despite its radical nature, the decision to withdraw from UNESCO
received widespread bipartisan support. The New York Times, The
Washing- ton Post, and The! Wall Street Journal approved. So did
Walter Mondale.

In making the decision known, the U.S. government indicated that it
would reconsider its withdrawal if serious improvements were
evident in UNESCO's performance before the end of 1984. With this
in mind a monitor- ing panel of interested citizens was set up by
the government to review UNESCO activities during the year. The
panel has recently concluded its work and has decided unanimously
that significant reform did not take place during the year.

There are last min ute efforts by the critics of the decision (who
are mainly centered in the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO) to
reverse it or at least to delay its implementation for a further
year. These should be firmly resisted and the U.S. should withdraw
from UNE SCO, as planned, on December 31, 1984. It should do so for
three reasons:

1.- What is at issue is important. It is important to make it clear
that the U.S. is not prepared to tolerate, and pay for, sustained
and unfair attacks on its fundamental values and institutions. It
is important also to establish that the U.S. is not prepared to
tolerate the wasting of the millions of dollars it gives to help
the world's pbor and illiterate.

2

2 . America can exert more effective pressure for the reform of
UNESCO f rom outside than it can from within. When it withdrew from
the international Labor Organization (ILO) in 1977-1979, the result
was a marked improvement in that body's performance which made it
possible for the U.S. to resume membership in 1980. In the cas e of
UNESCO, the U.S. decision to withdraw has already stimulated a more
serious concern with reform than has ever existed before. Great
Britain has followed the American lead and announced that it too
will serve notice at the end of this year. According t o observers,
from Jeane Kirkpatrick down, the decision has also had a salutory
effect in the rest of the U.N. system. Demonstrating seriousness,
by actually putting the decision into effect, is essential to
maintain the pressure. on the other hand, "workin g from within"
has failed and will continue to fail: it involves negotiating with
those who have created the present mess and who benefit from it;
and it involves doing so in circumstances in which they control the
negotiating process.

3. Even apart from t he merits of the case, the fact that the U.S.
has taken the decision to withdraw, after due deliberation, in
itself is a compelling reason for not retreating from it or
delaying its implemen- tation. A great country which values its
reputation should carr y out what it has solemnly announced it will
do. To do otherwise is to invite derision and contempt, not only in
UNESCO but generally.

A U.S. withdrawal does not mean that the causes of educational,
scientific, and cultural cooperation must suffer. Aid for those
causes can, and should, be given bilaterally. Alternate mechanisms
for co- operation either already exist, or can be created, and
these should be used until such time as UNESCO is capable of
fulfilling its mandate.

Nor, as is sometimes alleged, wil l ldaving mean that UNESCO will
be "pushed in the hands of the Soviets." In the case of the ILO
exactly the opposite occurred when America withdrew, and that
organization became tougher in its dealings with Communist
countries. Besides, Third World countr ies know that the Soviet
record as a giver of aid is abysmal and they would strive to avoid
being dependent on it.

The case for proceeding with the decision to withdraw from UNESCO
is overwhelming. The U.S. government should move quickly to put the
matter beyond any doubt and speculation.